Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 12

< February 11	February 13 >

February 12

Template:Bishops of Marlborough

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bishops of Marlborough (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bishops of Islington (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bishops of Whalley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A one-member navbox. Nothing else to add to the navbox since the title of Bishop of Marlborough hasn't been used for over 100 years. Unfortunately,a pointless template since the only place it can navigate you to is the article you're on! Bencherlite ^Talk 20:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also added the Bishop of Islington-related and Bishop of Whalley-related templates (one Bishop each, title not used since 1923 or 1936 respectively, same reasoning). Bencherlite ^Talk 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as pointless navboxes. Robofish (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:UC Irvine Student Life

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UC Irvine Student Life (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with Template:University of California, Irvine; about to become orphaned since the only article linking to this template was just nominated at AfD and the consensus was to merge. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant per nom. Robofish (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox irc channel

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox irc channel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article template for a non-existent (as far as i can tell) type of article. CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just discovered this template while working on a massive cleanup of the Internet Relay Chat categories, articles, and templates. This template should have been listed in a couple of template categories but it currently appears to be in none. It's difficult for people to find and use templates that haven't been properly categorized. I'm planning to properly categorize this IRC-related template and a few others I've discovered. Tothwolf (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what specific articles, pray tell, would this go with? The only one I've found was re-creation of a speedy-deleted page, now gone. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2008-09 PBA Philippine Cup Playoff Bracket

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008-09 PBA Philippine Cup Playoff Bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Tournament has ended so this will not be needed anymore. All of this instances were substituted. This is a routine TFD, if this can be deleted speedily it would be better. –Howard the Duck 05:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:United States Conference of Mayors Presidents

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Conference of Mayors Presidents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As stated on the template's talk page, it's much better suited for a list article and just shows Navbox-bloat. Plus, just as an aside, it's chronologically backwards. —Markles 22:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify per nom, there's no real use for a template like this. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 23:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote per TonytheTiger and AJHalliwell below. If we are going to keep this template, it should be overhauled. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify: I am voting keep and reorganize. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It serves the same purpose as any navbox. In particular, it serves the exact same purpose as {{National Governors Association chairs}}, {{UNSecretary-General}} and any other template that links sequential leaders of organizations that are composed of representatives of various regions. Do you think this serves any different purpose than those templates?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One difference is that the {{UNSecretary-General}} template is a list of people who held a more prominent position in a more important organization for longer terms than the presidents of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, the order needs be fixed. - A.J. (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything on WP can be improved. Slap some comments somewhere and hit me up on my talk page. Just point me to what you think is best. The only things I see as issues are whether we have chrono or reverse chrono (I have been to lazy to change it but I think it should be chrono) and whether city names should be on the template. I have them because of the number of redlinks to help people figure out who is missing. Let me know your thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. United States Conference of Mayors#Past Presidents communicates the same information -- and more -- in a more effective manner. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(At this point in the discussion, an editor added to this same discussion {{National Governors Association chairs}} and {{UNSecretary-General}} as additional templates for deletion, but they were later removed from the discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

(And if this template is deleted, they will be subsequently nominated along with other similar templates).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I believe it was ill-advised to change the nomination ten days into the nomination process. This makes it even more likely that the result will be "no consensus". While I believe the NGA chairs template ought to be deleted, I would have waited for a consensus on the U.S. Conference of Mayors template first. And the UN Secretary-General template should not be linked with the other two, because the relative importance and prominence of the Secretary-General is much higher than that of the NGA chairs and the Conference of Mayors presidents. I looked at all these templates a few hours ago, yet I wouldn't be able to tell you who is the current NGA chair or the president of the Conference of Mayors without going back and looking it up again. Request closure of this TfD and allow re-nomination separately. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the original discussion. I am now reverting the TfD tags in the two new templates and they have to be renominated. Sorty, TonyTheTiger but you have to do it again. Note: Change happened at 04:32, 12 February 2009 so it doesn't affect the original discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point is that if you believe that a list of sequential leaders of one political organization is not useful as a template, then why are any of them useful as a template. Look at Manny Diaz, the current President of the organization. The templates at the bottom of his page give us "At a glance" information. They do not require us to jump to another link to understand his roles. You are saying that because information is available within the text of an article it is not useful in a template elsewhere. This is not true.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have looked at the reasons advanced above for deletion (a list exists elsewhere, it's got a lot of entries, it's in reverse chronological order) and I'm not sure that any of them add up to "...therefore this template should be deleted". The reasons advanced for keeping it include a) it's useful, b) there are precedents, c) there's an active editor involved keen to maintain and improve, and IMHO these do add up to "...therefore this template should be kept". So keep the template. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To make my views on this more explicit, I don't see any reason why one would need to navigate from one president of the Conference of Mayors to another, because the position is not significant enough that most people would do that. The only exception is if the reader had a very great and intense interest in the Conference of Mayors itself, in which case they would want to refer to United States Conference of Mayors, where the same information exists, anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree because I research mayors and I find it easier to find them when templates are linking them. The common argument against templates are usually derivatives of the argument that I would never use it. Other people would. Do you fee the same way about the {{National Governors Association chairs}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I do feel the same way about the NGA chairs template. If this TfD ends up with a "delete", I will nominate {{National Governors Association chairs}} myself. I would think that these particular templates would be ~~notable~~ useful only if one were researching the U.S. Conference of Mayors or the National Governors Association itself, not mayors or governors in general. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Erm, I'm not sure I understand the continued insistence on deleting this template. The argument above that "...I don't see any reason why one would need to navigate from one president of the Conference of Mayors to another, because the position is not significant enough that most people would do that..." is based on the assumption that the positions are not significantly important to warrant a navbox. This assumption is erroneous. The individuals are notable enough to warrant a Wikiarticle, and navboxes are an accepted way of navigating between Wikiarticles: the perceived importance of the wikiarticle subjects is irrelevant. The number of people who would want to do so is irrelevant. The conversation above is tending towards "navboxes are acceptable for subjects passing a perceived threshold of importance, but unacceptable for those below that threshold", with the argument deforming to the placement of that threshold. I'm uneasy with that argument, because there is no threshold: the question is the legitimacy of the navigation, (we don't have navboxes for "all articles including the word 'aardvark'"), not the importance of the subjects being navigated. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The individuals may be notable enough to warrant articles in Wikipedia (although we don't, in fact, have articles about two of the last four presidents of the U.S. Conference of Mayors yet), but that is because they are or were mayors of prominent cities, not because they were presidents of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The criterion that links them together in this navbox is not important enough to justify the navbox. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems acceptable as a navigational template. Robofish (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.